SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:36 pm
I recently watched a biography on Clarence Thomas and I think I understand (though disagree) with his seeming hatred of his own race.
I recently watched a biography on Clarence Thomas and I think I understand (though disagree) with his seeming hatred of his own race.
You are not mistaken. This article refers to that as it analyzes the Allen case. Roberts makes clear in the new case that 1) precedent on Section 2 has been upheld since 1986 when the Gingles three prong test was introduced and 2) never has Congress seen a need to modify Section 2.
Breaking Down the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Out of Alabama
Breaking Down the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights A
Almost exactly 10 years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a majority opinion gutting Sections 4 and 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act (VRA). “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2,” he wrote at the time.
Despite that promise, a case directly challenging Section 2 wound up before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. But today, June 8, 2023, Roberts made good on his promise. In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision that Alabama’s congressional map diluted the voting strength of Black voters.
The majority — in clear and no uncertain terms — upheld Section 2 of the VRA and its current application, a massive victory for voting rights and for Black Alabamians who will have the opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice.
“Gingles has governed our Voting Rights Act jurisprudence since it was decided 37 years ago. Congress has never disturbed our understanding of §2 as Gingles construed it,” the Court explained. “And we have applied Gingles in one §2 case after another, to different kinds of electoral systems and to different jurisdictions in States all over the country.”“Gingles has governed our Voting Rights Act jurisprudence since it was decided 37 years ago. Congress has never disturbed our understanding of §2 as Gingles construed it,” the Court explained. “And we have applied Gingles in one §2 case after another, to different kinds of electoral systems and to different jurisdictions in States all over the country."
In the final section, Roberts rejected two more of Alabama’s far-flung attempts to undermine Section 2 of the VRA.
Alabama attempted to argue that Section 2 didn’t apply to redistricting at all and instead only applied to voting practices that directly impacted ballot access, such as voter registration policies. However, Roberts noted that Alabama’s understanding could not be reconciled with the Court’s “unbroken line of decisions stretching four decades” that applied Section 2 to redistricting maps.
(As a note, Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent made the same unfounded argument as Alabama that Section 2 does not apply to redistricting. Five justices rejected that today.)
The Court also rejected Alabama’s attempt to strike down Section 2 as unconstitutional under the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By doing so, the nation’s highest court confirmed the law’s constitutionality.
Today’s decision did not restore previously weakened sections of the VRA, but it maintained the status quo. While Alabama voters unfortunately voted under this illegal map in the 2022 midterm elections, the state will now have to redraw new, fairer districts. The impact will reverberate in at least nine other states, but most immediately in Louisiana where litigation was paused pending this decision.
Because the QOP believe that women aren't persons, rather they are just human incubators....Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:33 pm My question to the Universe is why was precedent controlling here but not in Roe v. Wade?
Sorry, it was a Frontline special about Thomas and his wife. It includes some biographical background on both of them.
I keep forgetting that, Frater! "Thanks" for reminding me!Frater I*I wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:51 pmBecause the QOP believe that women aren't persons, rather they are just human incubators....Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:33 pm My question to the Universe is why was precedent controlling here but not in Roe v. Wade?
Ruff day in court: Supreme Court sides with Jack Daniel's in dispute with makers of dog toy
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave whiskey maker Jack Daniel's reason to raise a glass, handing the company a new chance to win a trademark dispute with the makers of the Bad Spaniels dog toy.
In announcing the decision for a unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan was in an unusually playful mood. At one point while reading a summary of the opinion in the courtroom Kagan held up the toy, which squeaks and mimics the whiskey’s signature bottle.
Kagan said a lower court's reasoning was flawed when it ruled for the makers of the rubber chew toy. The court did not decide whether the toy's maker had violated trademark law but instead sent the case back for further review.
“This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence,” Kagan wrote in an opinion for the court. At another point, Kagan asked readers to “Recall what the bottle looks like (or better yet, retrieve a bottle from wherever you keep liquor; it's probably there)" before inserting a color picture of it.
At the center of the case is the Lanham Act, the country's core federal trademark law. It prohibits using a trademark in a way “likely to cause confusion ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of ... goods.”
A lower court never got to the issue of consumer confusion, however, because it said the toy was an “expressive work” communicating a humorous message and therefore needed to be evaluated under a different test. Kagan said that was a mistake and that “the only question in this case going forward is whether the Bad Spaniels marks are likely to cause confusion.”
Kagan also said a lower court erred in its analysis of Jack Daniel's claim against the toy company for linking “its whiskey to less savory substances.”
The case is Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 22-148.
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:37 am https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1ciuA7
Ruff day in court: Supreme Court sides with Jack Daniel's in dispute with makers of dog toy
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave whiskey maker Jack Daniel's reason to raise a glass, handing the company a new chance to win a trademark dispute with the makers of the Bad Spaniels dog toy.
In announcing the decision for a unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan was in an unusually playful mood. At one point while reading a summary of the opinion in the courtroom Kagan held up the toy, which squeaks and mimics the whiskey’s signature bottle.
Kagan said a lower court's reasoning was flawed when it ruled for the makers of the rubber chew toy. The court did not decide whether the toy's maker had violated trademark law but instead sent the case back for further review.
“This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence,” Kagan wrote in an opinion for the court. At another point, Kagan asked readers to “Recall what the bottle looks like (or better yet, retrieve a bottle from wherever you keep liquor; it's probably there)" before inserting a color picture of it.
At the center of the case is the Lanham Act, the country's core federal trademark law. It prohibits using a trademark in a way “likely to cause confusion ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of ... goods.”
A lower court never got to the issue of consumer confusion, however, because it said the toy was an “expressive work” communicating a humorous message and therefore needed to be evaluated under a different test. Kagan said that was a mistake and that “the only question in this case going forward is whether the Bad Spaniels marks are likely to cause confusion.”
Kagan also said a lower court erred in its analysis of Jack Daniel's claim against the toy company for linking “its whiskey to less savory substances.”
The case is Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 22-148.
The article notes the ruling like will cause only one additional Democratic representative from Alabama to be voted in (and one fewer Republican). But also notes similar pending lawsuits in Louisana, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. And there's also North Carolina (which technically isn't a section 2 case).The Supreme Court just handed Democrats a massive victory in their quest to retake the House of Representatives in 2024. In a 5-4 decision that was as surprising as it was consequential, the high court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that the Voting Rights Act requires Alabama to draw a second predominantly Black congressional district.
Not only does that mean Democrats will very likely gain a seat in Alabama next year, but the decision will probably also force other states to redraw their congressional maps as well. And with Democrats needing to flip only five House seats in 2024 to win the majority, this decision could be the difference between Republican and Democratic control of the House.
That was my very first thought.bob wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 6:32 pm 538: The Supreme Court's New Ruling Could Help Democrats Flip The House In 2024:The article notes the ruling like will cause only one additional Democratic representative from Alabama to be voted in (and one fewer Republican). But also notes similar pending lawsuits in Louisana, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. And there's also North Carolina (which technically isn't a section 2 case).The Supreme Court just handed Democrats a massive victory in their quest to retake the House of Representatives in 2024. In a 5-4 decision that was as surprising as it was consequential, the high court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that the Voting Rights Act requires Alabama to draw a second predominantly Black congressional district.
Not only does that mean Democrats will very likely gain a seat in Alabama next year, but the decision will probably also force other states to redraw their congressional maps as well. And with Democrats needing to flip only five House seats in 2024 to win the majority, this decision could be the difference between Republican and Democratic control of the House.
So, a representative here, another there, could determine the House.
I would not be surprised if someone in New York filed a lawsuit in response to SCOTUS' latest ruling.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/s ... erate-flagSupreme Court declines to review North Carolina’s decision to nix license plates with Confederate flag
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t review North Carolina’s decision to stop issuing specialty license plates with the Confederate flag.
It is almost like the identification has nothing to do with the conflict itself,...